Latest news with #NavtejSinghJohar
Scroll.in
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
As UN faces a key vote on expert to protect LGBTQIA rights, will India finally be on the right side?
India's foreign policy faces other test, when it comes to the vote on July 7 during the 59th session of the United Nations' Human Rights Council, when member states will vote on whether to renew the mandate of the first UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This mandate was established in 2016 and renewed in 2019 and 2022 and has been supported by a growing number of states from all regions. The current resolution to renew the mandate was presented by a core group of six Latin American countries – Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay . It was co-sponsored by countries from all regions of the world, including European countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain, African countries such as South Africa and Cabo Verde and Asian countries such as Japan. Asian countries that have voted for the mandate in the past include Nepal, South Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia, Philippines and Thailand, thereby strongly indicating that for Asia, LGBTQIA rights is no more a zone to be avoided but actively supported. In this trend of increasingly global support (with strong participation from the global south) for the proposition that discrimination and violence on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity have no place in our world, India's voice has been noticeably absent. While India has been a member of the Human Rights Council since 2016, on every resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity, India has unconscionably abstained. Course for the future The argument (though untenable) for abstention in 2016 was that the issue of decriminalisation was sub-judice and hence India could not take a position. However since the decriminalisation decision in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India by the Supreme Court this position cannot be taken anymore. Navtej Johar has made explicit the position of the Supreme Court that 'history owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal for the ignominy and ostracism that they have suffered through the centuries' The court also said, 'It is difficult to right the wrongs of history. But we can certainly set the course for the future. That we can do by saying, as I propose to say in this case, that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders have a constitutional right to equal citizenship in all its manifestations.' Unfortunately while the Supreme Court has acknowledged discrimination against LGBTQI persons as an egregious wrong, this thinking is yet to influence foreign policy. As such, India inspite of this historic and progressive decision, has chosen to remain mute both in 2019 and 2022 when it came to the resolution for renewing the sexual orientation and gender identity. mandate. This silence of the Indian government is untenable as the judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India has removed any possible legal ambiguity with respect to the fact that LGBTQIA persons are entitled to all human rights under the constitution. Combatting discrimination The mandate of the independent expert is based on the principle of dialogue with both states and civil society and aims to take forward best practices with respect to combatting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Since the post was established, three successive mandate holders have conducted official visits to 11 countries, produced 17 reports documenting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity – including the impact of the criminalisation of same-sex relations between consenting adults, the need to legally recognise a person's gender, and the situation of LGBT persons who are forcibly displaced, among others. They also sent communications documenting allegations of human rights violations to 171 states across all regions. It is of global significance that the mandate be renewed for another three years as so doing will ensure that there will be a spotlight on the discrimination and violence suffered by LGBTQIA persons in United Nations spaces. This has brought global attention to the often invisible suffering imposed on LBGTQIA persons. The mandate will enable LGBTQIA persons to continue to bring attention to egregious human rights violations and amplify the call to end violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This upcoming vote is an opportunity for India to demonstrate a commitment to upholding human rights standards and take on the role of a human rights leader. India, inspite of being the world's largest democracy, has shown little inclination to infuse its constitutional vision, grounded in a strong commitment to civil and political rights, into its foreign policy. This is yet another opportunity to shed that lassitude and stand on the right side of history.
Hindustan Times
23-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
💪 Mind the Gap: The big fat pride quiz
Hello Readers: It's Pride Month and I have a big fat pride quiz for you. Can you ace it? Read on: A pride parade.(PTI) Which city was the first to host a Pride Parade in India? a. Delhi b. Mumbai c. Bangaluru d. Kolkata 2. This law made same-sex relations illegal in India until it was repealed by the Supreme Court. It is: a. Section 377 of the Indian penal code b. The Immoral Traffic Prevention Act c. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act d. The Special Marriages Act 3. The lead petitioner in the Supreme court ruling that decriminalized section 377 in 2009 was: a. Vikram Seth b. Navtej Singh Johar c. Anjali Gopalan d. Saurabh Kirpal Queer people celebrating pride.(ANI) 4. The landmark 2014 Supreme Court judgment that officially recognized transgender people as a 'third gender' and granted them the right to self-identify as male or female or other is colloquially known as: a. Pocso b. Keshavananda Bharti c. Shakti Vahini d. Nalsa A still from the ad 5. Watch this viral 2017 Vicks ad, based on the real-life story of a transgender activist, here. Can you name the activist? A still from the movie Aligarh.(HT files) 6. Which of these movies does not feature a same-sex relationships? a. Dostana b. Mrs c. Fire d. Aligarh 7. In 2023, a five-judge Supreme Court bench declined to grant marriage equality rights to the LGBTQ community in a 3:2 verdict. The reason it gave: a. Indian society was not ready for it b. Legislation was the job of Parliament c. Marriage could only be seen as a union between a biological man and a biological woman d. To introduce such a concept would shake the foundations of the Indian family Who is he?(Twitter) 8. This is the bright, articulate and first openly gay person to be appointed a national spokesperson by a major political party. Name him. (Bonus if you can name the party as well). 9. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage is:a. Norway b. New Zealand c. Canada d. The Netherlands Scenes from a protest.(The New York Daily News/Wikimedia Commons) 10. This picture was shot in June 1961 and became the starting point of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, including Pride Parades. Can you name this event? 11. In this country (or countries) homosexual activity is punishable by death: a. Iran b. Russia c. Indonesia d. Uganda 12. The Supreme Court of this country ruled that for legal purposes, only those born biologically as women will be considered women. The country is: a. USA b. UK c. Spain d. Namibia This man was recently in the news.(Wikimedia Commons) 13. The first openly gay elected official in the United States was assassinated in 1998. Can you name this man? [Bonus: why was he in the news recently?] 14. Donald Trump said or did this. True or false? a. 'It is the official policy of the US government that there are only two genders, male and female' b. Banned transgender people from serving in the military c. 'Women have suffered greatly because of the participation of male-born players in women's sports. The whole situation is not only unjust but also insulting to women' d. Vowed to protect women whether 'they like it or not' 15. What does the rainbow flag represent? a. Diversity within the LGBTQ community b. A catchy and pleasing visual image c. Includes the colours of all the flags in the world d. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, signifying a better world at the end of the struggle for LGBTQ rights Answers The first pride parade in India(HT Files) d. Kolkata. In June 1999, when same-sex relations were still illegal, Kolkata hosted the first Pride Parade, calling it a 'friendship walk', with just 15 participants. BBC has more on that event here. 2. a. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code made sex 'against the order of nature' a criminal offence. Introduced during British colonial rule, it was repealed in the UK in 1967. Yet, many former colonies retained and some, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, still have it on their statute books. 3. Dancer Navtej Singh Johar was the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court judgement of 2018 that finally decriminalized same-sex relations by reading down Section 377. Earlier, in 2009, the Delhi high court had already decriminalized same-sex relations on a petition filed by Anjali Gopalan of the Naz Foundation but in 2013, the Supreme Court over-turned that decision leading Navtej and others to file a review petition which finally settled the issue, nearly a decade after the Delhi high court decision. 4. d. Nalsa or the National Legal Services Authority of India, set up in 1997 to provide free legal aid, was the primary petitioner to represent the grievances of the transgender community that was seeking a legal declaration of a gender identity other than the one assigned at birth. There were other petitioners too but, as the first listed petitioner, the landmark 2012 judgement came to be known as the Nalsa judgment. 5. a. Her name is Gauri Sawant, also known as Shree Gauri Sawant, who adopted a young girl after her mother died of HIV/AIDS. She was one of the petitioners in the Nalsa case. 6. b. Mrs, adapted from the critically acclaimed Malayalam film, The Great Indian Kitchen, deals with the burden of household chores and the unreasonable demands by the husband and in-laws of a newly married woman. 7. b. The Supreme Court passed the contentious issue back to Parliament saying it was not the job of the judiciary to pass laws. Two of the five judges did consider some compromises, such as the right to adopt or the right to be recognized in a civil partnership, but in the end gave the LGBTQ community no concessions. 8. Anish Gawande is a Rhodes scholar, an art curator and a political activist who co-founded Pink List, a website that listed 2019 Lok Sabha candidates on their record of supporting (or not) queer causes. In 2024, he was appointed national spokesperson for Sharad Pawar's Nationalist Congress Party. 9. d. In December 2000, the Netherlands added a few words to its existing marriage laws—"A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex'—and became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage. 10. The Stonewall Uprising began after New York city police raided a popular gay bar called the Stonewall Inn, an unlicensed private club said to be owned by the mafia, on June 28, 1969. Back then, homosexuality was a criminal offense and gay bars were routinely raided; Stonewall Inn had in fact already been raided earlier that week. But the raid turned violent with bar patrons and residents pelting the police with coins, stones and bottles, forcing them to barricade themselves inside Stonewall. The confrontation continued for six days and received inordinate media coverage boosting LGBTQ activism. 11. a and d: As of 2024, homosexuality was a criminal offense in 64 countries. It is punishable by death in 12, including Iran and Uganda. 12. b. UK. 13. That's Harvey Milk who had served in the Navy for four years before resigning because of his sexual orientation. Milk then became the first man in California to be elected to public office. He was in the news recently after US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth said he had ordered the Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk. 14. All are true. The intersex-inclusive progress pride flag. It was created in 2021 by Valentino Vecchietti. (Wikimedia Commons) on the original designed by artist Gilbert Baker and first flown at the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day parade in 1978, the rainbow flag represents diversity, unity and the fight for equal rights. The flag colours and designs have evolved over time to reflect intersectionality within the community.
Indian Express
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Courts accept that family goes beyond marital bonds. It's high time society did so too
When the Supreme Court of India decriminalised consensual same-sex relations in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, it did more than just strike down an archaic colonial law. It recognised that queer individuals are entitled to equality, dignity and autonomy under the Constitution. During the proceedings, one of the counsels had emphatically argued, 'How strongly must we love knowing we are unconvicted felons under Section 377?' This unfettered practice of love, in the face of historical discrimination, was highlighted as a key argument for repealing Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Going beyond the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships, the judgment said: 'The right to love and to find a partner, to find fulfilment in a same-sex relationship is essential to a society which believes in freedom under the constitutional order based on rights.' Since Navtej, India's courts have seen a growing number of habeas corpus petitions involving queer individuals seeking protection from harassment, violence, or unlawful confinement by their natal families. The first such case was decided in 2018 in Sreeja S v. The Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, where the Kerala High Court upheld the right of a lesbian woman to live with her partner without fear of reprisals from her family. While granting protection to such couples, courts have held that if the two parties are consenting adults, they have the right to stay with a person of their choice, irrespective of their gender identity or sexual orientation. These cases, often involving young couples fleeing social ostracisation or forced separation, reveal a simple truth: Decriminalisation is not enough. Without legal recognition of queer relationships, queer people remain vulnerable. Last month, the Madras High Court held that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family,' reflecting a reality long lived by queer communities which is often overlooked by the law. The Court's observation came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by a 25-year-old woman from Tirupathur, who sought the release of her partner from unlawful detention by the partner's family. Rooted in a growing body of queer jurisprudence, the Court recognised the couple's right to form a family beyond the traditional, and arguably limiting, framework of marriage and heterosexual norms. This judgment is significant because it broadens the legal understanding of queer families, making clear that the right to family life is not limited to marriage, nor confined to heteronormative relationships. Grounded in the Supreme Court's consistent affirmation that consenting adults have the fundamental right to choose their partners, regardless of caste, as held in Lata Singh v. Union of India (2006); religion, as in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M (2018); or gender and sexuality, as in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). Crucially, in Navtej, the Court clarified that the rights of queer persons encompass a broader, affirmative recognition of their right to love, dignity, and self-determination. This reasoning was further extended in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023). In this case, although the Supreme Court stopped short of legalising same-sex marriage, it unequivocally acknowledged the 'right to form intimate associations' as a core aspect of constitutional liberty. Central to its reasoning was also the decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), which expanded the legal understanding of 'family' beyond biological or marital ties, noting that the law must adapt to reflect lived realities, thereby making space for families of choice. The Court also relied on Devu G Nair v. State of Kerala (2023), wherein the Supreme Court had laid out comprehensive guidelines for how courts and authorities should handle cases involving queer couples. As part of the directions, the SC had urged lower courts to act swiftly, avoid bias, ensure police protection where needed, and strictly prohibit attempts to alter a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through 'conversion therapy' practices. In a legal and social landscape still largely preoccupied with marriage as the benchmark of legitimacy, judgments such as these mark a radical and necessary shift. It transforms constitutional guarantees into concrete protections, especially for those abandoned by family, society, or the state. In doing so, they reinforce that queer individuals are full rights-bearing citizens, entitled not only to protection from harm but also to affirmation, autonomy, and a sense of belonging. Looking ahead, the challenge is not merely to defend these hard-won judicial victories, but to build upon them and ensure that the law does more than shield queer lives. The writer is a socio-legal scholar working on gender and sexuality rights
News18
30-05-2025
- News18
Forced Unnatural Sex With Wife Amounts To Cruelty, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court
Last Updated: The court, however, clarified that such acts don't amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC when committed within a subsisting marriage due to the exception in the statute The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior, addressing the limits of criminal liability within marriage, has held that committing unnatural sex with one's wife without her consent, accompanied by physical assault and cruelty, constitutes an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the court clarified that such acts do not amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC when committed within a subsisting marriage, due to the exception carved out in the statute. The single bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia made the observation while hearing a case arising from proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior. The FIR, lodged by the wife (Respondent No. 2), invoked Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the IPC. According to the complainant, she was married to the applicant on May 2, 2023, under Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs 5 lakh in cash, household items, and a Bullet motorcycle. In her FIR, the wife accused the applicant of engaging in unnatural sex acts after consuming alcohol, often resorting to violence when she resisted. She further alleged persistent cruelty and abuse, despite attempts by her family and interventions by the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra and local police. The applicant's counsel contended that since the complainant was his legally wedded wife, the allegation of unnatural sex within marriage did not constitute an offence under Section 377 IPC. The counsel further asserted that if the primary allegation under Section 377 fails, then charges under Sections 498A and 323 should also not stand. The single bench examined the statutory framework and relevant judicial precedents. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1], the court reiterated that consensual unnatural sex between adults is no longer criminalised under Section 377 IPC. However, the distinction in the present case was the absence of consent. Despite this, the court observed that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC; which exempts sexual intercourse by a man with his wife (not under 15 years of age) from the definition of rape, remains operative under Indian law, unless the couple is living separately under a decree of judicial separation (in which case Section 376B IPC may apply). Accordingly, the court held: 'Thus, in nutshell, it can be said that if an unnatural sex takes place between two persons of either same gender or different gender with the consent of both the parties, then it would not be an offence under Section 377 of IPC." However, the court said that even where consent is absent, such acts within marriage are not punishable under Section 377 IPC due to the statutory exception. 'Thus the consent of both the parties is necessary for taking the act out of the purview of Section 377 of IPC," it said. Turning to the allegations under Section 498A IPC, the court emphasised that cruelty encompasses not only dowry-related abuse but also any wilful conduct that could cause grave mental or physical harm to the wife. The bench observed, 'Committing unnatural sex with wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty." The court also clarified that demand for dowry is not a prerequisite to invoke Section 498A, as cruelty under the provision is not limited to financial coercion. The court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the charge under Section 377 IPC but upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. The court held, 'Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under Section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 of IPC is upheld." First Published:
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22-05-2025
- Business Standard
'Law doesn't recognise marital rape': HC drops sex charge against husband
The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order directing the framing of charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man accused of performing oral sex on his wife, ruling that marital rape is not recognised under Indian law. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, hearing the husband's plea, observed that Section 377—which criminalises "unnatural offences"—cannot be invoked in the absence of non-consensual allegations within a marital relationship. 'There is no basis to assume that a husband would not be protected from prosecution under Section 377 of IPC, in view of Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC,' the court said, adding that the law presumes implied consent for both sexual intercourse and sexual acts, including anal and oral intercourse, within marriage. The court noted that the wife had not specifically alleged lack of consent, and cited the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, which decriminalised consensual sex between adults under Section 377. The ruling reaffirmed that consent remains central to any criminal charge under the provision. 'The essential ingredient of lack of consent – central to constituting an offence under Section 377 of IPC post-Navtej Singh Johar – is clearly missing. Thus, there is not only a lack of prima facie case, but even the threshold of strong suspicion is not met,' the court said. It concluded: 'No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 377 of IPC. The impugned order directing the framing of charge is, therefore, unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.' Contradictions and legal implications The wife had also alleged that the husband was 'impotent', and that the marriage was part of a conspiracy to extort her family. In response, the husband argued that the marriage was valid and that consensual sexual acts within marriage do not attract criminal liability under Section 377. Justice Sharma noted a contradiction in the wife's statements—accusing the husband of impotence while also alleging that he performed oral sex. The court further clarified that oral or anal intercourse is now included under the expanded definition of rape in Section 375(a) IPC, but remains exempt from prosecution when committed by a husband, due to the existing marital exception. 'In the context of a marital relationship, Section 377 of IPC cannot be applied to criminalise non-penile-vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife. Such an interpretation would be in line with the reasoning and observations of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar,' the court added.
